Dataset Information

Screening and management of mental health and substance use disorders in HIV treatment settings in low- and middle-income countries within the global IeDEA consortium.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Integration of services to screen and manage mental health and substance use disorders (MSDs) into HIV care settings has been identified as a promising strategy to improve mental health and HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Data on the extent to which HIV treatment sites in LMICs screen and manage MSDs are limited. The objective of this study was to assess practices for screening and treatment of MSDs at HIV clinics in LMICs participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. METHODS:We surveyed a stratified random sample of 95 HIV clinics in 29 LMICs in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa. The survey captured information onsite characteristics and screening and treatment practices for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental health disorders. RESULTS:Most sites (n = 76, 80%) were in urban areas. Mental health screening varied by disorder: 57% of sites surveyed screened for depression, 19% for PTSD, 55% for SUDs and 29% for other mental health disorders. Depression, PTSD, SUDs and other mental health disorders were reported as managed on site (having services provided at the HIV clinic or same health facility) at 70%, 51%, 41% and 47% of sites respectively. Combined availability of screening and on-site management of depression, PTSD, and SUDs, and other mental health disorders was reported by 42%, 14%, 26% and 19% of sites, respectively. On-site management of depression and PTSD was reported significantly less often in rural as compared to urban settings (depression: 33% and 78% respectively; PTSD: 24% and 58% respectively). Screening for depression and SUDs was least commonly reported by HIV programmes that treated only children as compared to HIV programmes that treated only adults or treated both adults and children. CONCLUSIONS:Significant gaps exist in the management of MSDs in HIV care settings in LMICs, particularly in rural settings. Identification and evaluation of optimal implementation strategies to scale and sustain integrated MSDs and HIV care is needed.

SUBMITTER: Parcesepe AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5878412 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening and management of mental health and substance use disorders in HIV treatment settings in low- and middle-income countries within the global IeDEA consortium.

Parcesepe Angela M AM Mugglin Catrina C Nalugoda Fred F Bernard Charlotte C Yunihastuti Evy E Althoff Keri K Jaquet Antoine A Haas Andreas D AD Duda Stephany N SN Wester C William CW Nash Denis D

Journal of the International AIDS Society 20180301 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Integration of services to screen and manage mental health and substance use disorders (MSDs) into HIV care settings has been identified as a promising strategy to improve mental health and HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Data on the extent to which HIV treatment sites in LMICs screen and manage MSDs are limited. The objective of this study was to assess practices for screening and treatment of MSD ...[more]

PMID: 29603887

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough more than two thirds of the world's incarcerated individuals are based in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of psychiatric disorders in this population is not known. This review provides estimates for the prevalence of severe mental illness and substance use disorders in incarcerated individuals in LMICs.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 17 electronic databases to identify prevalence studies of psychiatric disorders in prison populations in LMICs, published between January, 1987, and May, 2018. We included representative studies from general prison samples, providing information about four major psychiatric diagnoses: psychosis, major depression, alcohol use disorders, and drug use disorders. We pooled data from studies using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the sources of heterogeneity by meta-regression. We extracted general population estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases 2016 database to calculate comparative prevalence ratios. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020905.FindingsWe identified 23 publications reporting prevalence estimates of severe mental illness and substance use disorders for 14 527 prisoners from 13 LMICs. In this population, the estimated pooled 1 year prevalence rates for psychosis were 6·2% (95% CI 4·0-8·6), 16·0% (11·7-20·8) for major depression, 3·8% (1·2-7·6) for alcohol use disorders, and 5·1% (2·9-7·8) for drug use disorders. We noted increased prevalence at prison intake and geographic variations for substance use disorders. For alcohol use disorders, prevalence was higher in the southeast Asian region than in the eastern Mediterranean region; and drug use disorders were more prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean region than in Europe. Prevalence ratios indicated substantially higher rates of severe mental illness and substance use disorders among prisoners than in the general population (the prevalence of non-affective psychosis was on average 16 times higher, major depression and illicit drug use disorder prevalence were both six times higher, and prevalence of alcohol use disorders was double that of the general population).InterpretationThe prevalence of major psychiatric disorders is high in prisoners in LMIC compared with general populations. As these findings are likely to reflect unmet needs, the development of scalable interventions should be a public health priority in resource-poor settings.FundingCONICYT of the Chilean government and the Wellcome Trust.

Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS:A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS:153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.

Project description:AimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.MethodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.ConclusionsMore rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

Dataset Information

Screening and management of mental health and substance use disorders in HIV treatment settings in low- and middle-income countries within the global IeDEA consortium.

Publications

Screening and management of mental health and substance use disorders in HIV treatment settings in low- and middle-income countries within the global IeDEA consortium.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets